969623L SGT BAJINDER SINGH  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS -Judgment by Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: January 10, 2024

+ W.P.(C) 216/2024, CM APPL. 1005/2024 Stay
969623L SGT BAJINDER SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Udit Kumar Thakran, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Ms.Archana Surve, GP, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advocates with SST Vikas Kumar, SST Ashok Kumar and SST Bhatti, Air Force

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
�In view of the above, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon�ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Issue a writ Mandamus to stay and quash the operation of the Movement letter dated 11-12-2023 vide number 28 WG/MOV/OUT/2165/23 whereby he is asked to reach Bangalore, by which the petitioner is being posted out on ground that the same is illegal and malafide.
2. Impose exemplary cost on the respondents for the illegalities as committed by them during the proceedings leading to unwarranted harassment of the petitioner.
3. Any other order which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the present facts and circumstances of the case.�

2. Suffice to state the order which is under challenge is a movement order directing the petitioner to report to AFS Jallahalli West, Bangaluru.
3. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this movement order is pursuant to an order of reversion of the petitioner dated November 03, 2023, reverting the petitioner to Trade duties.
4. It is also a conceded position that the order of reversion is under challenge before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (�AFT� for short) in O.A. 4151/2023 and no stay has been granted by the AFT with regard to the reversion of the petitioner to Trade duties.
5. If that be so, the order impugned herein being consequential to the order of reversion, this petition seeking the stay of the movement order cannot be granted.
6. The petition is dismissed.
7. At this stage, Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC has drawn our attention to paragraph (n) of the grounds to contend that the petitioner has referred to a submission made by the officer from the JAG Branch of the Air Force to state that he has wrongly apprised this Court that the matter pertaining to the reversion to the Trade duties will not be maintainable in this Court and the AFT has the jurisdiction, need be expunged.
8. Suffice to state the remedy against reversion or relegating the petitioner from Sport duties to Trade duties shall lie before the AFT and in fact the petitioner has availed the said remedy. So it follows that the submission of the officer is not a wrong submission, as stated in paragraph (n) of the grounds.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

SAURABH BANERJEE, J
JANUARY 10, 2024/So

W.P.(C) 216/2024 Page 3 of 3